File Pro And Bus Errors

[Fairlight]

>From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Christopher Yerry shouted:

> 1 - The comment from Mark was improper and unproductive and has no place
> here but to be self serving.

It was perfectly productive.  The OP did -no- favours to anyone by
presenting misinformation about the supposed practical identicality of
segv's and bus errors--a myth that keeps getting reinforced by people
that know not of what they speak.  If you think that fP-Tech's support,
or any of the people here are well served by bug reports strewn with
misinformation borne of ignorance of the fact, you'd be wrong.  And
propogating this myth that the two are pretty much one in the same doesn't
help reverse the damage done.

I don't actually -give- a damn what you think of how I said it.  The truth
is, I'm trying to straighten out a popular misconception that's potentially
detrimental to anyone taken in by it either by inexperience or ignorance,
not to mention the people forced to deal with and try helping them.  What
that would do in the long run is serve -everyone-, not me.  I'd call that
an attempt at being productive.

Self-serving my ass.  When I have to put up with needless personal and
public responses like yours, I'm only causing myself more grief than I need
by trying to straighten out someone else's problem.  If I was -really-
self-serving, I'd let the ignorance continue on in blissful silence.

Maybe I should.  I'm coming to the conclusion that saving people from
themselves is an entirely thankless task that causes more trouble than it's
worth unless they actually ask for help--which only happens among a small
set of clued people because the unclued are the ones that think they know
everything when they don't even know enough to ask the right questions.

Geez Louise, I'm sick and tired of pompous jerks riding my ass for trying
to do things -properly-.  You want to believe dogma based on rubbish, fine.
Be my guest.  I'll stick to how things should be--I'll look at the facts
and let things speak for themselves in terms of empirical evidence.  The
former is the basis of most religious institutions, the latter the basis of
what science -should- be.  I think it's called computer science, not
computer religion, last time I checked.

Don't bother responding unless you like to hear yourself type.  I'm through
with this thread.  I'm actually pondering being done with reading all but
about 10-20 people's posts list-wide, as they're usually the only ones with
a clue, that you can actually trust.  Let the rest sit in the mess they
create is quickly becoming my reinforced attitude every time someone like
you pipes up with this judgemental (and inaccurate) rubbish.  THAT would be
self-serving at this juncture--totally blowing off the clueless masses that
make up the majority percentage, and only dealing with the clued or at
least partially clued.

mark->